U.S. Senate unanimously passes formal dress code after uproar
axios.com
The Senate passed a resolution Wednesday to make business attire a requirement on the Senate floor.
The moves comes after backlash to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) directive to scuttle the chamber's informal dress code, which was widely viewed to be inspired by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
The bipartisan resolution requires that business attire be worn on the floor of the Senate, "which for men shall include a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants."
The bill does not spell out what the attire includes for women.
You are viewing a single comment
This is what's important to these people. They don't care about millions suffering every day, they don't care about the climate going to shit, they don't care about the economy. They're up in arms because someone might not wear a full suit in their presence. These are your "representatives".
They didn't get into power magically. Every single one was elected. So unfortunately we get the politicians we deserve. It ticks me off that in a non presidential election it's basically impossible to get even half of eligible voters to show up at the polls. If more Americans cared then we might get more politicians who care.
It's ostensibly true that they were elected by the people, but after many years of observation I have to assume that no one gets into the position to be on those ballots without an entire shit-ton of shady backroom wheeling and dealing. I assume all of the top level politicians are corrupt and we aren't given any choices for legitimately altruistic politicians.
If the American people wanted better politicians we could vote them in. Most politicians are able to get on a ballot by getting signatures on a petition. If people cared about politics as much as they cared about their entertainment (sports, movies, TV, games, etc) then there would be an entirely different class of politician running for office.
Say you don’t understand the political economy in the United States without saying you don’t understand the political economy in the United States.
I'm always willing to listen someone else's opinion. What is your diagnosis of current American politics and what's your prognosis?
I'm not sure we could. Who was on the ballot in the last presidential election? Not anyone whose politics i want to support. I can't vote people who represent me into power because those people can't get ballot access. Sanders isn't even that guy for me but at least he'd be something. He almost broke through twice but each time he was stomped down by the status quo politicians.
Not magically, no, but it's no secret that the more evil the candidate, the more money they get in campaign donations and behind the scenes help from billionaires who really really want them on their side when they are in office. Americans are not getting fair elections with fair information.
Americans have more access to good information now than ever before. If Americans want to be informed they can be. Billionaires don't have mind control rays. Too many Americans just don't care. Not all but the vast majority of us can name the athletes on our favorite teams going back decades but don't know the name of the men and women who represent us. Or the name of our state's governor.
To your point, more people have access to information than ever. Good and bad. Look at all the crap around COVID. You have medical professionals releasing studies and vaccine, and some douche named Q saying "Nah, it's poison. Drink bleach instead". Obviously this is an easy example to differentiate what's good and bad info. But people still tried bleach. Countering good information with a malicious, self serving narrative seems to be as easy as saying "That's what the establishment wants you to think", and people fall for it all the time. In huge numbers. Over every little piece of bullshit that gets published somewhere. Politics are a huge centre of misinformation and disinformation, making it very challenging to pick out what's not total crap. And that's the point.
If you want good information it's easier now than ever before to access it and verify it.
Verify it against what? Additional information of dubious quality? Case in point, the whole "vaccines cause autism" thing. That finding was published by Andrew Wakefield in Lancet and cited everywhere. Only thing is that is was debunked almost immediately, but people kept citing the publication.
My point being that few people have the gumption to check sources, and if they do, fewer still are going to keep tabs on them more than once, or verify the validity against... yet additional sources. Every step in the process has the end user trying to determine if what they are reading is true, against other information they don't know is true.
My point is that misinformation has always been here. This isn't something new. In the past you had to do actual research to verify if something was true, half-truth, or completely untrue. Now you can easily find information. And compared to researching something in a library, easily verify it.
This could be a generational thing but it's so incredibly easy to disprove something now. If you Google, "do vaccines cause autism" in less than a quarter of a second Google gives you government websites, scholarly articles, links to university studies, etc. It's easier now than ever before to find and verify good information. And I'm not trying to be dismissive but I don't think anyone will convince me otherwise any time soon.
It's a little out of order, but I just wanted to mention that I don't disagree with you, and I don't find your tone dismissive at all! Further, I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything specifically, just raising points of interest. We're just having a fun little back and forth!
Misinformation and falsehoods are as old as time, absolutely. What is new is the lack of trust in the authoritative bodies that would typically provide that ballast of truth, to measure against. People distrust the government (and if what I've read about the history of US politics is true, there might be something to that). They don't typically associate government information with "good" information as they would have in the past. Even official publications are not immune, as per my previous example with vaccinations. Lastly, I believe you and I have the ability to search something and find a suitable result to cut through bad information; at least better than most. Passing the "smell test", if you will. We take that for granted. The vast majority don't realize how to find information effectively. They may search "vaccines cause autism" as a question, but that may very well return many fringe articles with that exact string in it, providing validity to the statement where none was before.
Basically, the game is rigged. We've figured out how to navigate those waters with a reasonable amount of success, but it's a skill we've invested in. Most people do not possess that, and are unwilling to acquire it (those same people that will put in a support ticket before trying literally anything to resolve a technical issue they may be encountering). For them, the information bounty we are enjoying is a minefield of confusion.
We all get the politicians the worst of us deserve.